The key point is that a rapidly growing population in your new cities would need lots more economic turnover in order to have the same standard of living as the current population now has, let alone lead to an average increase in the quality of life across the whole country.

A big increase in urban economic production in the last two or three decades hasn’t helped us much, and is not likely to in the future. It potentially could. But let’s face it, we are not likely to go anywhere near realising this potential.

<< “Dealing with congested cities” is nothing whatsoever to do with population control >>

Deeear oh dear! You demonstrate considerable knowledge in some areas of this broad debate, and then you skittle your credibility with such an absurd statement!

Even Ross Elliott admitted that population growth is a factor affecting congestion.

In theory, if we could achieve the most incredible things, like getting half the population of Sydney and Melbourne to recentralise in various centres, after these centres had been planned to accommodate them in such a manner that they wouldn’t then become congested ghettos, we could have the same level of population growth that we now have and actually alleviate congestion at the same time.


But this is totally theoretical and is far removed from the real situation in Australia.

In the real world, you know full well that population growth, the rate of growth and the size of our population has EVERYTHING to do with congestion.

If you could just admit this bleedingly OBVIOUS factor, I might have a little bit more inclination to explore some of the other things you are saying on this thread.

You really still don't get it, do you Ludwig.

By insisting that the only alternative to your imposition of population control on a submissive populace is "allowing our population to rapidly increase with no end in sight", you set up a false dichotomy.

By definition, arguing with such a position is impossible. Which is why the only conceivable reason for establishing it must be in order to hear your own voice.

Have a great day on the beach.

Pericles, tis you who just completely doesn’t get it.

In the real world, that is: in Australia with our current congestion problems and our current rate of population growth, it IS INDEED a matter of being either genuinely concerned about congestion or being a high-population-growth advocate.

It is completely nonsensical to make out that you are both.

In a different world entirely it would perhaps be possible for Phil’s assertion that decentralisation is the answer to be true, and for population growth to not cause further congestion.

But here we are, in the real world, not in the land of theory and fantasy. Population growth very directly worsens congestion. No matter what else we might actually be able to do to address congestion, this will remain true. Or at the very least, it will greatly undermine even our best efforts to alleviate congestion.

And the population factor is huge!

So again, it is most definitely nonsensical to be concerned about congestion and be willing to consider anything at all that might help, while completely ignoring the population factor.

Your analysis of my question is not only very odd, it is entirely WRONG!

You see, there you go again Ludwig.

>>...in Australia with our current congestion problems and our current rate of population growth, it IS INDEED a matter of being either genuinely concerned about congestion or being a high-population-growth advocate<<

The either/or that you present is patently a false dichotomy.

Somebody could be rightfully concerned about city congestion, and at the same time support a low-population-growth scenario for the exact same city. They are, for a start, totally independent issues. It is entirely feasible, for example, to improve people-flow around the city with the single aim of allowing more people to live and work there.

>>It is completely nonsensical to make out that you are both<<

It is completely nonsensical, Ludwig, to make out that these are the only alternatives.

Pericles is talking sense (along with me) and Ludwig is just fooling around pretending otherwise.

Ludwig accuses ME of skittling MY credibility with absurd statements, when he is in total denial of the reality that I have patiently described. Look at this:

"......A big increase in urban economic production in the last two or three decades hasn’t helped us much, and is not likely to in the future...."

I repeat: the value of urban-economic production has increased fourfold relative to that of rural-economic production over the last 60 years. NZ has slid from the top of the OECD to the bottom during that time, its economy heavily dependent on primary produce.
The percentage of the workforce in a nation still involved in the rural economy, correlates closely to its poverty. Does Ludwig know ANYTHING about economic development and its real life history?

The "increase in urban economic production that hasn't helped us much" according to Ludwig, has actually prevented us from sliding back into the company of still-largely-rural national economies. There is no way Australia would have maintained its position well up in the OECD without its urban economies. And it COULD be doing far better, likeTexas, which is directly applicable as a comparison.

Texas' population is accommodated in FAR lower density cities than Australia's and those urban economies are far more productive than Australia's, AND have shorter trip-to-work times, AND affordable housing.

I am always bemused by bluster from "Greenie" types, about "economic growth and income not being all that important". But the same people always insist on government spending being kept right up there for welfare and health and education and bureaucracy and subsidies to "Green" industry and McJob "creation" and "indigenous people" and public transport and so on and on. Where do they think the money to pay for all this stuff has to come from?

I can assure Ludwig that a nation's ability to pay for all this stuff will correlate pretty directly to the growth of production of its urban economies. Take the welfarist Scandinavian nations as a classic, classic, CLASSIC starting example.

Phil just what is all this urban economic production? I'm afraid I can't see very much of it going on.

Could it be all this is taking in of each others washing? Or is it the earnings of exported mining & agricultural production, finding it's way into the cities to be wasted there, rather than spent in the regions that actually earned it.